Stop following a Hyperliquid address (writes to your account)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by spelling out what is destroyed vs retained ('the address's alerts stop, its recorded events stay'), which is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the trigger condition before the data-source note. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and annotations that already cover the safety and idempotency signals, the description supplies the remaining essential context (trigger, id source, retention behavior). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented there, so the schema carries the load. The description only restates the id's provenance ('from list_tracked_addresses'), matching the schema wording without adding format or syntax detail. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('stop following ... a Hyperliquid address') and names the source of the identifier. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like remove_watchlist_symbol and delete_alert_recipe, which operate on different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to call it ('when the user asks to stop following or tracking a Hyperliquid address') and points at list_tracked_addresses for the id. It does not state when-not to use it or name a true alternative, but the triggering condition is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.